On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:33:14 +0200, Claudio Jeker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:20:38PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:57:10PM -0500, Josh Hoppes wrote: >> > Thanks for the help and for the better understanding of routing >> > domains and tables. In the end I was over thinking the problem and >> > didn't actually need the additional routing table. >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Claudio Jeker >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 09:40:44AM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: >> > >> Josh, >> > >> >> > >> the table needs to be created and an interface need to be assigned >> > >> to >> > >> the rdomain like: >> > >> >> > >> ifconfig em0 a.b.c.d/24 rdomain 1 >> > >> >> > >> then you can use it like, just for example, this: >> > >> route -T 1 add e.f.g.h/24 a.b.c.x >> > >> >> > >> that does the trick. >> > > >> > > Nope. Something sneaked in that makes it impossible to create >> > > alternative >> > > tables. I will have a look. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > :wq Claudio >> > >> >> Still here is a diff to fix the porblem. route(8) was failing too early. >> Maybe someone has a better idea on how to solve the gettable() issue in a >> nicer way. >> > > Is nobody interested in this? > > route -T 1 add 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 should work. This is how routing tables > are supposed to be created. It would suck to be unable to do this. > > Sending it to tech@ as well. > -- > :wq Claudio > -snip
We're using this diff on two staging systems that will eventually go into production. Definitely makes creating additional routing tables a lot easier for us. Thanks, Claudio!
